In many construction disputes, insurance and coverage issues can play an important role in the overall strategy of a case. More specifically, parties that are covered under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies must consider whether their carriers will pick up the defense of any claims against the insured, including defense costs, selection of attorney(s), and more. Typically, this duty to defend is triggered by a “suit” against the insured, as defined in the subject CGL policy. Does a “suit,” however, commence at the initiation of the notice and repair process set forth in chapter 558, Florida Statutes, or when a lawsuit is actually filed against the insured? After much debate, the Florida Supreme Court answered this question in the seminal case, Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 232 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2017).
Altman Contractors, Inc. (“Altman”), the general contractor for the construction of a condominium, was insured by Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“Crum”) on a CGL policy. Id. at 274. Crum had a duty to defend Altman in any “suit,” as defined by the policy, arising from the project. Id. Between April 2012 through November 2012, Altman received multiple Chapter 558 construction defect notices from the owner. Included in the 558 Notices were alleged construction defects to the project. Id. at 275.
Altman then notified Crum of the owner’s claims and demanded that Crum defend and indemnify Altman against the owner’s claims. Id. Crum, however, refused to defend and indemnify Altman arguing that the 558 Notices were not a “suit” as defined in the applicable CGL policies. Id. Crum eventually hired counsel to defend Altman under a reservation of rights position, but the claims ended up settling before a lawsuit was filed. Id. After Crum refused to reimburse Altman for fees and expenses incurred since the date of tender, Altman filed suit against Crum for breach of contract and declaratory judgment for Crum’s failure to defend and indemnify Altman under the applicable CGL policy. Id. at 276.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question at issue to the Florida Supreme Court and the Supreme Court first looked to the CGL policy language. Id. at 277. The policy defined the term “suit” to mean:
A civil proceeding in which damages because of ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage’ or ‘personal and advertising injury’ to which this insurance applies are alleged. “Suit” includes: a. An arbitration proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured must submit or does submit without consent; or b. Any other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured submits with our consent.
The Court focused on subparagraph (b) regarding the alternative dispute resolution language. Id. More specifically, the Court held that the Chapter 558 process does fall within the definition set forth in subparagraph (b) because a 558 notice is a required presuit process encouraging the claimant and insured to settle claims for construction defects without resorting to litigation. Id. at 278. Furthermore, even the legislature characterized the Chapter 558 process as an “alternative dispute resolution mechanism.” Id. Thus, the Court decided that the 558 process, under that particular CGL language, constituted a “suit” that triggers the insurer’s duty to defend the insured.
The effect of the Court’s holding, however, may be limited in nature. Insurance carriers may simply change their policy language to exclude the Chapter 558 process from the definition of what constitutes a “suit” under the policy language. Because the Court heavily relied upon the language of the CGL policy itself, this reaction by insurance carriers may prove to be effective. Regardless, lawyers and contractors should be mindful of the Altman opinion going forward and carefully review their CGL policy language as to what constitutes a “suit.”
Relevant Links & Blog Posts:
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Strikes Down the DOL’s Increased Salary Thresholds for Executive, Administrative, Professional, And Highly Compensated Employee Overtime Exemptions
- Breaking News: FinCEN Postpones Beneficial Ownership Reporting Deadlines for Companies Impacted by Recent Major Storms
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
Popular Categories
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Department of Labor
- Salary
- Construction
- Business of Real Estate
- Landlord-Tenant
- Construction Litigation
- Real Estate Law
- Competition
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Appeals
- Construction
- Public Private Partnership
- Litigation
- Contracts
- Trusts and Estates
- Data Security
- Development/Land Use
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Privacy
- Technology
- IP Litigation
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Patents
- Public Finance
- Business
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Health Care
- Contracting
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Property Tax
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Government
- Conveyances
- Lease
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Infringement
- Cyber fraud
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Bid Protest
- Arbitration
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- International
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Promissory Notes
- Title
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- Consumer Privacy
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- International Arbitration
- Liens
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Power Generation
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Venue
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- Record on Appeal
- FINRA
- Eviction
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Dispute Resolution
- Liens
- Maritime
- Damages
- Briefing
- Patents - Obviousness
- Request for Proposal
- Commercial Brokerage
- Trade Secrets
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Certiorari
- Design Professionals
- Forum Selection
- email hacking
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Designer Liability
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Banking
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Finality
- Fintech
- Marketing/Advertising
- Preservation
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Mootness
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016